What happens to this negative?

[jose_pg]

What do you see in this negative?, What could have happened?.

Overdevelop, underdevelop, subexposure or overexposure. It is not

exactly to the original because of the scan but very similar.

[jose_pg]

This is the positive. Let me inform you that the real negative is not so dark but very close to it.

[pnance]

Film looks to be developed OK. The exposure seems off about 3 stops down. Great shadow detail.

[jay_de_fehr]

They look overexposed and overdeveloped, to me, but the exposure could be exhaggerated by the overdevelopment. I'd reduce development 30-50%, and go from there. Good luck.

 

Jay

[ken_schroeder]

The exposure looks right to me, but it is definitely overdeveloped. What film, developer, dilution, agitation method, time and temp did you use?

[jose_pg]

This one is another positive from one of the negatives (also close to reality in spite of the scanner). It has 30 seconds of Neutol development at 20? celsius (more or less). I like it very much but that high key is purely due to the problem I reported in my previous messages.

Does this photo reveal you anything about development and exposure?

[jose_pg]

I forgot to tell you it is a T-max 400, 5 minutes 45 seconds development in HC-110 at 20? Celsius

 

thanks so much

[ronald_moravec1]

It is exposed properly based on the detail in the dark hair.

 

It is one to two paper grades over developed. If the times match those on Kodak`s website, you mixed it wrong or the thermometer is off.

 

Kodaks times are for a diffusion enlarger, reduce 10-15 % for a condenser.

 

Reduce the time if time and dilution is correct or dilute the developer more.

 

Patterson tank is at 1:31 10cc syrup and 310 cc water. For a stainless tank it is 8cc to 248cc water and throw away what you don`t use. Measure in a 10cc graduate or a syringe. This has to be very accurate and that is why Kodak doesn`t recommend it.

[ken_schroeder]

Jose, did you use dilution A or dilution B (HC110)? Your time seems in the correct range for dilution B. My guess is that you may have used the stronger dilution A. Also, how did you agitate during development?

 

I use dilution B and mix it one part developer syrup to 31 parts water. I have had good results this way for over twenty years.

[ken_schroeder]

PS...I use a small graduate for measuring the HC110 syrup. Generally half an ounce syrup mixed in with about 15 1?2 ounces water at 20C. I realize that is not ideal....but it has worked for me.

[gerald_widen]

Judging from the second print it looks to be properly exposed, maybe even slightly underexposed but greatly over developed. There isn't all that much shadow detail in the boys hair so it definately wasn't over exposed maybe even slightly under exposed since the over developement might of helped there. The over development caused all of the detail in the face to be blown out.

[alexis_neel]

With that development time and dilution, and the resulting negatives, I would say you over exposed them by about 2 maybe 3 stops. Normal dev time for your combination is about 6 minutes, so its not overdevelopment.

 

Alexis

 

www.alexisneel.com

[pnance]

Did I say underexposed, I meant overexposed by 3 stops.

[ken_schroeder]

The problem is not overexposure. Look at the shadow detail. It is adequate, but certainly not excessive. Taking away three stops of exposure would eliminate it. The problem is overdevelopment. The high values are too high. The time seems right for HC110 dilution B with intermittent agitation at 20C. In my opinion, the three most likely errors are 1) using developer at the wrong dilution 2) continuous agitation 3) temperature too high due to miscalibrated thermometer of warming of the developer. Jose, how did you dilute the HC110?

[jose_pg]

I'm at work now and don't remember the dilution (I think it is 200 of syrup + 800 of water. Then to make the stock solution I use 38cc + 262cc of water. Tomorrow I will tell you exactly what it was. The photo number 2 (the child) has been developed on paper number 2, 30 seconds. For what you say, the general opinion is that the negatives are a little overdeveloped and especially overexposed.

I agitate softly during the first minute and then 5 seconds every minute very softly. It is not a question of agitation I guess. The themometer seems to be okay as I have two (one mercurio from germany and an alcohol jessops) and both measures the same. My camera is a EOS 1v recently tested.

 

Thank you very very much to all for the help.

[silent1]

If you're close to 200 ml syrup to 800 ml water (or 800 ml final volume) you're developing with stock solution, which would give a correct time on TMY of around 1:45 at 20 C. Your time of 5:45 is close to right for Dilution B, which would be made by diluting your stock solution 1:7 with water (32 ml stock, 224 ml water for a stainless 35 mm tank). That would mean you effectively pushed the film by at least two stops, possibly close to three (which is about as far as you can go with HC-110 on TMY); you gained little or nothing in shadow detail, but contrast was greatly increased and thus your highlights are extremely dense.

[chris_waller]

Slightly over-exposed and considerably over-developed.

[jose_pg]

Up to now, I have been using HC-110 as follows:

1 part of pure syrup + 3 parts of water (250ml+750ml)

1+ 7 to make the stock solution (38ml + 262ml)

 

What about if I change 1+7 for 1+9?. Please tell me the way you do all the process of mixing and then making the stock solution.

[ken_schroeder]

Jose, you are at a critical part of your artistic development. You have a good eye for making meaningful images. You have many of the variables of good technique in hand. You are at the place now where some concentrated study and work will produce a technical level of skill for you where printing becomes a joy. I hope you will stay the course!

 

Keep working with your present film and developer combination. Don't confuse yourself by adding extra variables. Forget things like "push or pull" developing. Concentrate on becoming consistent with basic development.When you can control exposure to produce rich shadow details and development to produce delicate highlights, your prints will sing.

 

May I make a couple suggestions for printing these negatives? With graded paper, a softer developer such as Kodak Selectol Soft is very useful. An easier way is to use variable contrast paper. With VC, think of making two prints, a soft and a hard. Start with the soft print. Use your softest filter. Make test strips to determine how long to expose to make your whites print right. Don't worry about the blacks at this point. Then, switch filters and expose using just your hardest filter. This time look only at the blacks. The soft time will pribably be considerably longer than the hard time. No problem. Then make a print using the soft filter and exposure time and then the hard filter and time. I believe you would find this easier than trying to find a single filter time.

 

Please keep up the good work and keep us posted.

[jose_pg]

Thanks so much Ken... and the rest, of course.

[tim obrien]

Just looking at the negatives, you are at least a stop over exposed. This isn't a bad thing if you deal with it in the development. But...

 

your highlights (and midtones) are highly overblown. Dilute, dilute, dilue. Reduce agitation.

 

As far as the prints, do you always develop for only 30 seconds?

 

tim in san jose

[jose_pg]

No, I don't always develop for 30 sec. It was just this case cause less time gave me even whiter positives. Certainly, not all the negatives I develop turn out the same. Normally, I use in my old HANSA PRIMA f11 or f16 diaphragm like in this case so as not to blow out too fast.

I have just thrown away the stock solution and will dilute a new one for future developments. The hc-110 left was too orange compared to the new bottle I've purchased so, prevention is better than cure.

[ken_schroeder]

Jose, discarding your old HC110 solution was probably a good idea. It simplifies your procedure not to have doubts about it. I have always used HC110 (dilution B) mixed directly from the bottle (no stock solution). I realize the world is metric, but in my "asynchronous" darkroom, I use half an ounce of HC110 syrup with sixteen ounces of water. I pour the HC110 into a small (1 1/2 oz.) graduate. Run some of the developer water into the small graduate a couple times and shake it with the top covered by your thumb to make sure all the solution goes into the developer. This method might not be accurate enough for a research laboratory, however, it works fine in the darkroom. It has the added benefit that the syrup in the bottle stays fresh indefinitely, much longer than the stock solution.

 

You mention a thirty second development time for your print. I am not familiar with Neutol developer (that is not a criticism of it; I am merely noting that I have no experience with it.) With my developer (Zone VI, similar to Dektol) and fiber paper, I use a minimum development time of two minutes. If the print appears too dark in that time, it means I must reprint using less exposure.

 

I try to print with a base exposure in the range of twenty one seconds. I use a foot switch and have my timer set for three seconds. I use multiples of three seconds. Twenty one seconds works out to be seven three second bursts of light. My point is the longer exposure time gives me more control. With a five second printing time, a second off would be very noticable. At twenty one seconds, a second more or less is not critical. This method allows longer burning and dodging times, which help make the changes seamless.

 

I use a longer enlarger lens (I use an 80mm. I have used it for twenty five years, so I guess it's now an "old" lens.) Using the longer lens means the light source must be further from the easel. That requires more time for the same exposure. This is like driving slower on a narrow road. It takes a little longer, but is much more controlled. Using a longer lens with a 35mm negative means you are only using the center area of the lens. Therefore, even inexpensive lenses should perform well. (I should add that I rarely make a print larger than 8x10. That is a matter of personal taste with me. I like the intimacy of being able to hold and view my images in my hands.)

 

If your enlarger light source is too bright to allow longer printing times, try a lower wattage bulb or place a filter in the light path.

 

I was most fortunate to have found an excellent book twenty five years ago. The book is called the Zone VI Workshop by Fred Picker. Fred Picker was an outstanding teacher. It is now out of print, but is very readily available used online, either from used book dealers of by auction. Price several, it is easily found. Your local library may have it, and certainly can get it via interlibrary loan. However, it should be part of your personal library. Some of the materials and products mentioned in the book are out of date. However, the technique is very solid and presented in a user friendly way. You will not find this book difficult. It will help you find firm footing with your technique.

 

Have faith and keep working. There are images to be found and preserved.